Dov Kruger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I noticed that gimp is very slow for large images compared with
> Photoshop. We were recently processing some 500Mb images, and on a fast
> machine with 2Gb, gimp is crawling along, while on a slower machine with
> only 512 Mb, photoshop is considerably faster.  I attributed it to a
> massive amount of work in photoshop, using sse instructions, etc. but
> then noticed that the default viewer in redhat allows me to load images
> far faster even than adobe, and zoom in and out with the mouse wheel in
> realtime.
> Granted, because you are editing the image, not just displaying it,
> there has to be some slowdown, but I wondered if there is any way I can
> tweak gimp, do I somehow have it massively de-optimized. When I first
> set up gimp-2.0, I tried both 128 and 512 Mb tile cache sizes. 512 seems
> to work a lot better, but it's still pretty bad. Any idea as to the area
> of the speed advantage of Adobe?

If you are processing large images and have 2GB available, why do you
cripple GIMP by limiting it to only 512 MB of tile cache size?

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to